The Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L USM is coming in Q4 of 2022 [CR3]

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,556
7,339
A 'telephoto' lens being >85mm?
Sort of. A telephoto design is one where the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length. For example, the EF 100mm f/2 is a telephoto design – it’s about 74mm long. However, the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro lenses are around 120mm long and thus are not telephoto designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,769
4,195
The Ozarks
Seems I’m in the minority, but I’m disappointed this will be f1.8. The lens roadmap has been mostly accurate to date and I’ve been excitedly waiting -- for what feels like years now -- for a 135mm f1.4.

Sigma, Sony and Samyang already make excellent 135 f1.8s and I can’t see this Canon lens being much better. Making yet another 135mm f1.8 just seems to lack ambition. Sure, it will fill a gap in the RF system, but Canon had a real opportunity here to make an “ultimate portrait lens” which could have attracted people from other systems.

If Canon weren’t so hostile to 3rd party manufacturers then I’m sure Sigma/Samyang could have provided an excellent/affordable RF 135mm option, leaving Canon to focus on something that would have pushed the envelope. I had thought that the RF 28-70 f2 was a statement of intent from Canon that they planned to make more unique and ambitious lens designs, but sadly that lens appears to be a one-off.

I sincerely hope the RF 35L doesn’t disappoint.
I would also like to see f/1.4... but I don't see how a small difference (f/1.4 vs f/1.8) would be earthshaking enough to get folks to abandon other systems. At that focal length, in my opinion, a difference like that won't be noticed. My desire for faster would be, just because. Besides, f/1.8 would probably be a much more affordable and convenient size for the masses.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jan 22, 2021
3
4
Aaa 35mm 1.2 would be an instant buy for me (if reasonably sized). I wonder if we see answer to Nikon teles for birding, where it's cheaper to get the lens with Z9 body then just a Canon lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

jonbenz

Canon EOS 6D/70D
May 31, 2018
8
2
A lens’ entrance pupil diameter is the apparent view of the iris diaphragm as seen from the front of the lens. The front element of a lens must be of sufficient diameter to ‘fill’ the entrance pupil with light. For telephoto lens designs, the axial position of the entrance pupil is approximately at the position of the front element. So to estimate the size of a telephoto front element, you simply divide the focal length by the maximum f/number (because f/number is the ratio of focal length to entrance pupil diameter).

Thus, a 135mm f/1 would need a 135/1 = 135mm front element. Similarly, the 600mm f/4 would need a 150mm front element. In practice, lens specs are rounded, and usually in a direction that benefits the manufacturer. So, the 600/4 is probably something like a 593mm f/4.12 lens, which is consistent with the ~144mm diameter that I actually get with a measuring tape on my 600/4L IS II.

Note that the entrance pupil being at the axial position of the front element is a telephoto design ‘feature’. Thus, for example, the front element of the 16mm f/2.8 is much larger than 5.7mm.
Thanks, great explanation!
what about normal lenses? let's say, how would they calculate the dream lens front element? (50mm f0.95).
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,556
7,339
Thanks, great explanation!
what about normal lenses? let's say, how would they calculate the dream lens front element? (50mm f0.95).
‘Normal’ focal length lens designs are often relatively symmetrical, such that the entrance and exit pupils are very close to each other and near the physical iris diaphragm. That’s true for both the older double gauss designs like the EF 50/1.2 and the newer, more complicated designs like the RF 50/1.2.

64C6FA5E-5E66-490C-AF66-B6C22303C4F4.jpeg

The front element size is mainly determined by the degree to which designers want to reduce aberrations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

fox40phil

5DIV & RP
Apr 12, 2013
284
180
Germany
www.phileas-schoenberg.de
Since my R6 I m at a really bad state with my old lenses... they perform really bad in "fps" with the R6 and the mechanical shutter.
With the MK1 70-200 2.8 non-IS i only get 5-9fps with AI Servo on. Same with the 135 2.0!
This sucks :(.... Especially for indoor sports with balls (table tennis, socker etc), because of the rolling shutter with electronic shutter!
 
May 9, 2022
5
1
With the 200MM F2 discontinued it would be nice to have a 135mm with epic shallow DOF as a replacement. 1.8 is not going to get me there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Oct 24, 2018
173
64
Finland
I'm personally hoping for a 135/1, that has perfectly round highlights in the corners by 1.4, and with a DS filter cutting transmission and DOF to f/2, but instead of hard-edged disks, it has fuzzy balls of about twice the size (by area). It'd be the ultimate portrait lens I think.
How many people can afford 7K lens :D ? And probably no wife allows to buy such lens. You better start living in celibacy :D
 

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,714
437
51
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
??? What are the deficiencies?
The deficiencies are not optical or anything specific about it's build. It's more to do with what if offers a photographer in terms of low light capability. I shoot a lot of weddings and compared to a 85mm f1.2, the 135L looses 2.3 stops in real world exposure settings. The 85mm is 1.3 stops brighter, the focal length allows for a faster shooting speed, 1/80th sec vs 150th sec. These add up and make the lens a lot less useful in low light situations. For moments inside a dimly lit English church (I once shot a wedding service in Canterbury Cathedral crypt by candle light), I wouldn't use a 135L. It's just not "fast" enough. Out side under normal (English) daylight it's fine. A 70-200 f2.8 LIS looses one stop in brightness to the 135mm, and should be shooting at 1/200th sec for sharpness. But it has a 4 stop IS unit...which helps bring the shutter speed down and the ISO values with it. The 135L doesn't come close to the low light abilities of either the 85 f1.2 or 70-200 f2.8 LIS.
One of the issues a wedding photographer has is consolidating their lens list to the barest minimum.
If the 135mm was roughly the same size and weight (which is one of it's key benefits - it's an awesome walk about tele lens) but gained a 4 or 5 stop IS unit...it would be even more versatile. If it gets heavier and larger, like pushing the aperture value / objective lens size to accommodate f1.8 then the lens becomes too heavy and burdensome compared to the current model. For weddings, the 135L is super discrete for shy guests. It's half the size of the big shouty white 70-200 and it's also half the weight, which is a lot easier to handle all day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,050
1,284
UK
www.flickr.com
Right, at f1.8 I will just stick with the 85mm f1.2. If they want to sell a lot of glass the 1.4 or 1.2 would be unique.
If they want to "sell a lot of glass", making it several times more expensive (as a very wide aperture would imply) is counterproductive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
May 9, 2022
5
1
If they want to "sell a lot of glass", making it several times more expensive (as a very wide aperture would imply) is counterproductive.

They discontinued the 200m f2. I would like a current replacement for that. However I am sure not as many people would be willing to pay for it and they must go to the bigger market. Personal I would use the large glass for pro work.
 

Blue Zurich

The artist formerly known as slclick
Jan 22, 2022
202
321
So are we agreed? A larger diameter front element, faster than 1.8, lighter body, IS and while we're talking crazy, less $$ than the EF counterpart. Please. I also want it to make me breakfast after shooting all night.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user